Rugby League the biggest watched sport on Aussie TV

[unapologetic pedant]

On 04/03/2020 at 16:01, Dunbar said:

The stats on the scorelines between the Super League and NRL are interesting. 

Average points per team per game

NRL = 20

Super League = 22

 

Average winning margin

NRL = 14

Super League = 16

 

Number of games with winning margin 4 points or fewer

NRL = 46 (out of 188 games) 24% of games

Super League= 39 (out of 174 games) 22% of games

 

Number of winning margins above 50 points 

NRL = 2

Super League = 2

 

The NRL and Super League are surprisingly similar in the scorelines

(NB: this is not a commentary on the quality of the two leagues)

The NB point is significant. Most of us know, when watching NRL, that it`s higher quality than SL.This brings us back to whether we determine quality inherently or in terms of spectator and TV viewer appeal. In the nineties Pete Sampras was the best grass court tennis player, but his games at Wimbledon were not great to watch. NRL competes successfully with AFL in TV ratings, gets nowhere near in crowd figures. There may be various reasons for these respective crowd figures, but the success on TV must be because the TV audience in Australia is educated to appreciate RL in greater depth than here in UK, where quality is judged by how open or high-scoring a game is.

Our players and media are not sufficiently analytical. They`ve imbibed a lifetime of rhetoric that RL is a simple game, particularly vis-à-vis RU. In the lead-up to the Wigan-Bath cross-code challenge our players felt obliged to repeat how hard they would find the complexities of RU, like they were being asked to acquaint themselves with quantum physics. Our commentators are especially hopeless at conveying context and calibration of risk in a game where possession is limited. When a team run the ball on sixth tackle, Dave Woods will usually assume they must have miscounted or not heard the ref`s call. Factors like field-position, risk of kicking dead and conceding zero-tackle on the 20, risk of opposition taking kick cleanly, difficulty of scrambled defence in transition, all these are neglected, the preferred explanation being that RL players are a bunch of idiots who can`t count.

[DC77]

On 04/03/2020 at 08:47, Cheshire Setter said:

Super League in the 2000s was more exciting than the current NRL in terms of attacking extravagance and entertainment, albeit with poor defence and less competitive matches.

However, the entertainment value of Super League has dropped off the scale in the last 5-6 years.   I accept we are picking from a much smaller talent pool but it seems the players coming through are very generic in in their style and coached ability.   It’s says a lot when the most exciting thing we can talk about this week is Liam Marshall’s off the cuff try against Hudds.    Didn’t we used to see that every week a few years back?

I know defences are now better, the league is tighter and we’ve run Australia closer in tests and finals etc.   I’m just not sure if that has been good for the UK game overall as we’ve lost our selling point as a ‘spectacle’.

Think you’ve nailed it, especially the last paragraph. Better defences, more structured play, less risk averse (five drives), this makes it a much harder game to play, and less attractive to watch. 

Those comparing the Australian game with the game here with the argument the game here isn’t any more attractive are forgetting the game here has changed due to the influence of the Australian game. The game here is now an Australian version. The right comparison is the Australian game to how the game here used to be, ie. British. 

The 2017 RLWC final was Australia vs an Australia style team. It was watertight, and dull. 

Shaun Wane (and the Aussie he worked under) made Wigan successful, and dull. He will likely continue the drab work of the Aussie he’s taking over from with England.

Leeds yesterday with their attacking, entertaining rugby was much more like the British game. 

[John Fisher]

On 01/03/2020 at 07:25, lucky 7 said:

https://tvblackbox.com.au/sports/2019/10/8/2019-nrl-season-by-the-numbers

So Rugby League is on it's ###### in the UK but it doesn't matter because the TV viewings in Australia are OK?

[John Fisher]

Just now, John Fisher said:

So Rugby League is on it's ###### in the UK but it doesn't matter because the TV viewings in Australia are OK?

not allowed to use the word a-r-s-e in case it offends someone

[DC77]

5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The NB point is significant. Most of us know, when watching NRL, that it`s higher quality than SL.This brings us back to whether we determine quality inherently or in terms of spectator and TV viewer appeal. In the nineties Pete Sampras was the best grass court tennis player, but his games at Wimbledon were not great to watch. NRL competes successfully with AFL in TV ratings, gets nowhere near in crowd figures. There may be various reasons for these respective crowd figures, but the success on TV must be because the TV audience in Australia is educated to appreciate RL in greater depth than here in UK, where quality is judged by how open or high-scoring a game is.

Our players and media are not sufficiently analytical. They`ve imbibed a lifetime of rhetoric that RL is a simple game, particularly vis-à-vis RU. In the lead-up to the Wigan-Bath cross-code challenge our players felt obliged to repeat how hard they would find the complexities of RU, like they were being asked to acquaint themselves with quantum physics. Our commentators are especially hopeless at conveying context and calibration of risk in a game where possession is limited. When a team run the ball on sixth tackle, Dave Woods will usually assume they must have miscounted or not heard the ref`s call. Factors like field-position, risk of kicking dead and conceding zero-tackle on the 20, risk of opposition taking kick cleanly, difficulty of scrambled defence in transition, all these are neglected, the preferred explanation being that RL players are a bunch of idiots who can`t count.

Sampras was dull as he played in a very structured (almost robotic) style. Serve and volley ad nauseam (when not serving aces, relentlessly). And he was brilliant at it. It’s comparable to the Aussies in RL. 

England (historically) play in a much less structured way. The prime reason England (GB) haven’t beaten the Aussies in 50 years is due to the vast gulf in playing numbers. England with a similar number of players to choose from (meaning a leap in quality of personnel), and playing the more open attacking British style, would win much more often than not against a rigid style of play.

Regards viewership, what appeals here is not the same as Australia. They are all about the biff. Grinding down the opposition. Look at the two biggest sports. AFL and RL, two games where blokes often beat the ###### out of each other. In the international rules series between Australia and Ireland, the Irish players are much more skilled with the ball at their feet, the Aussies far more adept at the physical stuff. It’s a clash of two styles. In terms of RL, unfortunately the game here has followed suit with a more rigid, risk averse, physique based game.

[Dunbar]

I can't agree with the analogy that Australian Rugby League is dull, structured and robotic.

I have been watching Rugby League since 1984 and I am a passionate supporter of England/Great Britain but in that time the vast majority of the best, most skilful and exciting players have been Australian and the vast majority of the best, most skilful and exciting teams have been Australian. 

Let's not confuse the ability to play the game with minimal errors with a lack of ambition and attacking mind set.

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, DC77 said:

Sampras was dull as he played in a very structured (almost robotic) style. Serve and volley ad nauseam (when not serving aces, relentlessly). And he was brilliant at it. It’s comparable to the Aussies in RL. 

England (historically) play in a much less structured way. The prime reason England (GB) haven’t beaten the Aussies in 50 years is due to the vast gulf in playing numbers. England with a similar number of players to choose from (meaning a leap in quality of personnel), and playing the more open attacking British style, would win much more often than not against a rigid style of play.

Regards viewership, what appeals here is not the same as Australia. They are all about the biff. Grinding down the opposition. Look at the two biggest sports. AFL and RL, two games where blokes often beat the ###### out of each other. In the international rules series between Australia and Ireland, the Irish players are much more skilled with the ball at their feet, the Aussies far more adept at the physical stuff. It’s a clash of two styles. In terms of RL, unfortunately the game here has followed suit with a more rigid, risk averse, physique based game.

Someone should specify a date or at least a period when our players began to imitate the rigid Aussies, because I`m not convinced. This explanation was dominant through the eighties but really came unstuck at the 92 World Cup final. Don`t think GB produced a single offload in that game, or even looked to. The kangaroos weren`t exactly razzle-dazzle either, it was a very tight contest, but they were certainly more ambitious than we were.

Perhaps the stark difference is that we have to play with greater risk and expansion as standard, we can`t turn it on when necessary, with the consequent danger, because of our poorer defence, that if the passes don`t stick we take a pasting. The Aussies, with greater confidence in their defence, can pick their moments to open up.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I can't agree with the analogy that Australian Rugby League is dull, structured and robotic.

I have been watching Rugby League since 1984 and I am a passionate supporter of England/Great Britain but in that time the vast majority of the best, most skilful and exciting players have been Australian and the vast majority of the best, most skilful and exciting teams have been Australian. 

Let's not confuse the ability to play the game with minimal errors with a lack of ambition and attacking mind set.

This thread was originally about the NRL outrating the AFL. Comparing the two games, with no offside and a massive field AFL is so stretched out that the gap between what a spectator sees, and what a TV viewer sees is not as wide as NRL. A lot of the brilliance of RL, split-second passing in tight spaces etc, is impossible to fully appreciate when you`re at the ground, unless you watch it on the giant screen in slow-motion. It`s worth asking therefore whether in RL there`s a trade-off between the type of style and tight games that keep Aussie TV viewers engaged and watching longer, against the more open style that probably most fans who go to games, and as we can see a number of posters on here, prefer.

 

[lucky 7]

On 07/03/2020 at 01:36, John Fisher said:

So Rugby League is on it's ###### in the UK but it doesn't matter because the TV viewings in Australia are OK?

Your inanity is showing with such a asinine comment